Kim Davis as a Platoian (Un)just Soul

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

As one of the most prevalent stories in recent media coverage, Kim Davis is a Kentucky legal clerk who refused to issue court mandated marriage licenses to gay couples. Davis claimed to make this decision because she placed her religious beliefs above her duties as a clerk. Because of her unwillingness to follow through on the court orders, Davis was placed in jail. While she was released under the agreement that she would no longer hinder the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, While it is admirable that Davis would go to such an extreme extent to defend her moral beliefs, as Ryan said in his critique of this situation, "Davis was being unjust when looking at if from a societal standpoint." The interest to the author here is not the nature of whether it is better to fulfill the social contract as established in Hobbes' Leviathan or place one's personal beliefs above that contract. Rather, it is to attempt to determine whether or not Davis' actions would be deemed just by Plato, as defined loosely in his Republic.

Plato argues that a just polis is just because is is the aggregate of the just souls that inhabit the polis. While he does not offer a concrete definition of what justice is, Plato does outline actions that are taken by just souls in a tripartite system. Appetite refers to physical desires: sex, money, tangible belongings. Spirit refers to the emotional contingent of humanity in which we get impassioned and animated about happenings in our lives. In order for one to be just, the third piece of Plato's system (Reason) must govern and control the other two. These three pieces must work together to create harmony in the individual soul, which will lead to harmony across all souls and therefore harmony in the polis. A polis is just when all souls in the polis are doing their individual jobs justly.

It is the opinion of the author that Plato would deem Davis' actions as unjust because she let spirit dictate her actions to an unacceptable extent. If she had reasoned through the situation, she may have realized that it is not her job to determine the morality of homosexual marriage in Kentucky. Rather, it is her job to listen to the courts and issue marriage licenses as they see fit, not the other way around.

What are your thoughts on the Platoian justness of this sitation? Do Davis' actions fall in line with Plato's broad definition and outline of Justice? What reasoning supports your stance?

Government and Social Contract

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

In the March 2011 Pro-democracy protests erupted across the country of Syria. The uprising started after the arrest and torture of some teenagers whom painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. The Syrian government under President Assad has been accused of government corruption and abuse of human rights. The government then sent security forces to calm the pro-democracy protests but they did the exact opposite. The security forces opened up fire on the protesters killing several and triggering national protests demanding the resignation of President Assad. President Assads regime have been accused of deliberately attacking areas with large amounts of civilians with chemical airstrikes. Since the beginning of the unrest in Syria more than 200,000 Syrians have lost their lives and 11 million more have been forced to flee their homes as rebels fight the Assad regime.

       

 I found that this article related to our John Locke conversation about social contract. Locke believes that the government has the responsibility to protect natural rights such as life and liberty. As we stated in class “governments that seek to subvert these natural rights are illegitimate and therefore can be overthrown.” The citizens of Syria believe that their social contract that they have with the Syrian government has been violated. The social contract has been violated because the Assad regime is torturing and killing large amount of Syrian citizens. I believe that the Assad regime has violated the social contract between the government and the citizens. Giving the Syrian citizens the right to revolt against the government. Do you think that John Locke would agree that the Assad Regime broke the social contract that they have with the citizens of Syria?

Xintong Sui Justice Blog Post

http://tinyurl.com/otlbo6m

The link posted above talks about the high unemployment issue that is now prevailing in the U.S. According to the data: Over 8 million Americans were unemployed in July, and about 2 million were classified as long-term unemployed. However, the unemployment rate does not affect Americans equally. The official unemployment rate is around 5 percent. Surprisingly, the unemployment rate for African-Americans is over 9 percent, nearly doubles the official unemployment rate. These distinctions even affect teenagers more seriously. American teenagers have an unemployment rate of about 16 percent, but for African-American teenagers, the unemployment rate is over 28 percent. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body and mind” (Hobbes, 82). Does what Hobbes wrote really applies to all Americans? The second part of the article mentions the reduction of immigrants which may thought as an effective resolution of the unemployment issue. Even though some 9 million new jobs were added to the U.S. economy from 2000 through 2014, during that time, there’s nearly about 18 million new immigrants, both legal and illegal had entered the U.S. Obviously, not only Americans but also immigrants are now competing for the limited jobs and resources. Are these “free to leave” immigrants who try to seek more opportunities and better lives, like Crito said, can’t be regarded unjust or should they be regarded as unjust people, like Hobbes said, who break their contracts with their own country?

The unemployment issue reminds me of what Thrasymachus had said: “In justice, when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice; and the just is the advantage of the stronger, and the unjust is what is profitable and advantageous for oneself” (Plato 22). In my opinion, even though the state of nature hath made men so equal, the reality does not follows the state of nature all the time. It hard to deny that those relatively weak people (African-Americans) may have the chance to beat the stronger since there are a great many of outstanding African-Americans. However, compared with those white elites, they are still of a relatively small portion. All men are created equal does not apply to all circumstances. The second part of the story which related to immigration is even more controversial. On one hand, as for Crito, he might support the immigrant since people are all free to leave and they have the rights to pursue the life that they want to live. On the other hand, as for Hobbes, those immigrants are unjust since they at first signed contrast with their own country. And it is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile,and unmanly disposition to sign a contract with another commonwealth. In my opinion, it is not morally right to enjoy the convenience provided by both countries, because it is a violation of the laws of nature. Since it is people’s right to defend themselves however they can, people should come together and create a body (the government) to rule them all and prevent the “war” between Americans and immigrants from happening. 

Can Money Replace a Wrongful Conviction?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/2-men-awarded-750000-for-wrongful-convictions-in-1983-murder.html?ref=topics&_r=0

The link posted above describes how half-brothers Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown were recently rewarded $750,000 each as compensation for spending three decades in prison for a crime they were wrongfully convicted of. McCollum and Brown were arrested on September 28^th, 1983 for the rape and murder of eleven-year-old Sabrina Buie. McCollum was only nineteen and Brown was only fifteen when they were arrested. The article explains how there was no physical evidence that either boy had been involved. After being arrested, the two boys were questioned for hours by the police without a lawyer present and eventually McCollum falsely confessed to the crime. They were then convicted and sentenced to death. Lawyers with the Center for Death Penalty Litigation pressed for DNA testing of evidence. A cigarette that was left near the murder scene was tested and matched a different man named Roscoe Artis. Artis lived only a block from where the body was found and he was serving a life sentence for raping and murdering an eighteen-year-old. Judge Douglas B. Sasser vacated the conviction on September 2^nd, 2014 and the men were released the next morning. This article mentions how McCollum and Brown’s compensation money was granted exactly one year after being released as free men. It also mentions how the two half-brother's lawyer does not believe that the money is enough for either of them when the costs of living are factored in. Both McCollum and Brown suffer from mental disabilities and do not have any skills or training to get jobs according to their lawyer.

I found that this article relates to Plato’s Crito in the sense that McCollum and Brown were both wrongfully imprisoned, just as Socrates was. Socrates dealt with his punishment and remained in prison even though he was being wrongfully accused of a crime. McCollum and Brown did the same. In the Crito, Socrates is faced with the decision of whether or not he should leave his cell. His old friend Crito believes that he should leave because he was wrongfully imprisoned, but Socrates ends up staying. This then resulted in the question we discussed in class: if you were placed in Socrates place would you try and fight your sentence or remain in prison because it is justice? McCollum and Brown accepted their punishment, just as Socrates did. In the end McCollum and Brown were proven innocent and released. Although it took three decades for McCollum and Brown to be set free, many would say that in the end justice was upheld. Others would disagree and say that being wrongfully accused of a crime is unjust. How would you interpret McCollum and Brown’s wrongful conviction? Would you have acted in the same way if you were them? 

Justice in Marriage?

Since the founding of the US the debate of religion in politics has been a major talking point.  This debate is still prominent today, seen particularly in the Kim Davis debacle.  If you have managed to miss the media coverage on this particular 'controversy' it is just another religion in politics debate.
Kim Davis a country clerk from Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, just days after the Supreme Court ordered that gay marriage is legal.  Kim Davis claimed that, "issuing the licenses would violate her conscience and go against her religion."  After the news broke that Davis was breaking a now constitutional law, the case was brought before US district judge David Bunning, who ordered Davis to jail and ordered the deputy clerks to issue the licenses.  Bunning later released Davis from jail under the condition that she would not interfere with the deputies from issuing the licenses.

This whole debacle is very interesting when thinking about justice.  In class we talked a lot about how if you lived in country you have a contract to follow the laws that the country has, and if you don't follow those laws you are unjust.  In this situation then is Kim Davis unjust in denying the licenses to same sex couples, but this is when religion and personal ethics come into play.  Obviously Davis was being unjust in when looking at it from a societal standpoint but in her view she was being just.  Her ethics and religion are against gay marriage and she  was being just.  So the question I'm trying to reach is, whether it is better to be just in terms of yourself or just in terms of society?

Adriana Reisser Justice Blog Post

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/arizona-pioneer-fire/index.html

The link I shared above leads to a story titled "40 years after epic Arizona hotel fire, convicted man set free".  It is the story of a then 16 year old boy named Louis Taylor.  He was convicted of setting the Pioneer Hotel in Tucson, Arizona on fire and killing 29 people as a result.  He was sentenced to life in prison at the age of only 16.  After 43 years in prison, forensic experts took another look at the case and deemed that they could no longer determine if the blaze was caused by arson.  Louis Taylor was set free after a second court hearing.  The former witnesses recanted their stories and the forensic evidence they had was no longer strong enough to convict Louis. 

This story reminded me of Plato's Crito because the Crito was all about Socrates being wrongfully imprisoned.  The dilemma in the Crito was that if you were wrongfully imprisoned, should you do everything in your power to get out or should you accept it because it is justice?  This article is clearly an example of just that.  Louis Taylor acted similarly to Socrates in the Crito because he took the sentence and did his time until someone justly came and set him free.  Additionally, the part about the Arizona Justice Project reminded me of Crito in the jail cell.  He was trying to convince Socrates to leave because it was unjust, and the Arizona Justice Project essentially does the same thing for convicted persons. They find ways to help them and prove their innocence in a just way. Overall, I saw almost the same story as Crito played out in a modern day setting.  Can you imagine going to prison for 43 years only to be proven innocent at the end?